So, I think the answer to the OP is, yes, you are the only one that doesn't like Bokeh when used for effect.

My comment at this point is that it astonishes me how the OP can have either the arrogance, or the ignorance to think that since he believes the only good photographs have an infinite DOF, that everyone else really must feel that way too, or his astonishment at our absurd aesthetics is justified.

CanonEOS

Oh my it's like an old record going around and around.

What's the point of having a picture if the background is blurred out? Most people want to see the subject and background in focus, at least you can see more detail of the picture then just one big blur.

so infact there is no blurred vision at all now you see everything with your eyes, so what a point of a camera lens that takes blur backgrounds? (in your words nice bokeh)

here is no way anyone can change your mind if some members like me don't like it no one can change our minds also,

If that is the attitude, there is no hope. I can see many have tried on this thread to make him understand there is beauty in much more of the world than he can see right now, but his intolerance and pure ignorance of what photography is about will not allow him to accept anything but his own very narrow mind's view. Too bad.

To the OP: it is perfectly fine for you to take lots of pictures with every extraneous detail in focus if you wish. You really should, however, open your mind to the beauty and clarity of meaning that selective DOF can create for a subject as well. Your photography, and your philosophy will both benefit.

^ That is just CanonEOS. Take a look at all debates where that member is involved and you will see a trend. Very argumentative, with little to no concessions for others' views. These types of folks usually don't stay on the board very long. It's all good, though, sometimes there is something to be gleaned from their arguments, it just takes alot of work to read through the lines and 'tude.

You are trying to tell me boke-bokeh is beautful? at least my Eyes is not out of focus like all the bokeh members here, at least I can see everything with two eyes and what did all of you do before boke-bokeh was invented? suck your thumbs!

"Invented"????? It wasn't "invented"; it is a fact of the physics of light and lenses. No one invented it. It is just a matter of choice whether or not selective DOF is something you want to use, or not.

Your attitude that, anyone who thinks it can be beautiful is stupid, is the problem. The fact you think it is a recent invention is proof of something else entirely.

I didn't say anyone is stupid you did, don't put words in my mouth or my text, I am just saying I don't think boke-bokeh is beautiful it just my opinion and I can see everything with two eyes were is the attitude in that?

Did I use bad language in this thread No but other members didDid I use the words all the members here are stupid NoDid I say to any member they have a bad attitude NoDid I try to stop this Yes

What are you and timeSpeed doing continue it like old Record.

I say it again this time I make it bigger

I don't care if you like Bokeh but I don't like it IMO everyone to their own way of taking pictures just enjoy your life.

Bye

rral22 wrote in post #12382385"Invented"????? It wasn't "invented"; it is a fact of the physics of light and lenses. No one invented it. It is just a matter of choice whether or not selective DOF is something you want to use, or not.

Your attitude that, anyone who thinks it can be beautiful is stupid, is the problem. The fact you think it is a recent invention is proof of something else entirely.

CanonEOS wrote in post #12382314Maybe we should look at all your threads, your not a mod, and you don't make the rules who comes and goes, and I am here to stay forever, if you want to leave that ok. I am alowed to have my own opinions like all the other members here. and post my pictures. if you don't like what I have said don't keep replying.

The only opinion that you have given that is relevant to the thread, is that you prefer a deeper depth of field in your own work. That is fine, and no-one disagrees that you have a right to that opinion and how you produce your own work. Have fun

All the other rubbish that you have poorly presented and attempted to debate is just childish waffle. It appears to serve no other purpose than to perpetuate an argument where you fail to accept that facts of the matter and supplant them with your own!

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is rono258890 guests, 239 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.